Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A Word About RON PAUL

A Word About Ron Paul

Let me start by saying I simply LOVE when people are politically engaged. I don't care if they agree with my personal politics or not - just so long as they are passionate, informed, and active. Now...to the point:

This note isn't about which candidate I directly support. Neither is it to sway readers into my way of thinking or to tell them who to support. Rather, this note is in response to several discussions lately (in person, social media, and one talk radio discussion that I chimed in on) regarding the foreign policy (& related) of Ron Paul....who seems to be a very polarizing figure, but one with incredibly enthusiastic support (and a large segment of the youth vote).

For the record, I do not speak for Ron Paul's campaign. I was engaged in a few of these discussions because several people were aware that I'd been following his career since the late 1980s and because they know my personal political leanings (which are more libertarian than Paul's, I should note). Others - like Marc's & Paul's - I just butted in on (hahaha!).

This is not an attempt to address any other issues one may have with Dr. Paul, so if you decide to comment, please stay on point.

The critiques are many, but probably summed up best by what Mr. Denny said. To wit: "...(I) find him profoundly deluded on certain international realities...". Or perhaps what one caller said on Kruser's show (WVLK): "He blames America (for 9-11)....(and) he doesn't support Israel...".

Fair enough. Let's take these 3 one at a time.

1) Foriegn policy: One thought. And I mean it - I'd like everyone to actually consider this fact carefully rather than just jumping in with a response:

Ron Paul is the only military veteran in the race in either of the 2 major parties - he was a pilot & flight surgeon during the early 1960s - and receives more money from active military than all other republican candidates combined AND well over the amount Obama receives. At one point, he was getting more than ALL republicans PLUS Obama combined.

So the question to consider, while we all sit here safely thousands of miles away from combat zones overseas, is this: Why do our fighting men & women overwhelmingly support Ron Paul?

If Ron Paul is deluded or weak or irresponsible (or, as Newt said at one debate, "profoundly stupid") on foreign policy, why do they guys who fight the wars overwhelmingly support his stance on disengagement, budget waste reduction, and non-intervention?

2) Israel: Dr. Paul is the most Israel-friendly candidate on the campaign trail. While some see his position of lifting support for them as a knife in the back, both he and the military realize that Israel only needs aid from us because for every dollar we give Israel, we give their enemies between $3 and $7 (figures vary). Moving further back, the Reagan administration condemned the attack on Iraq's bomb facilities by Israel way back in 1981. Only Ron Paul dissented from the official view. He supported Israel 100% when Reagan & the GOP (not to mention the democrats) did not.

Dr. Paul realizes that if we stop financing Israel's enemies, we no longer need to finance Israel's military. It is that simple. Then if Israel decides, for example, to bomb Iran's nuclear development plants (as they did Iraq's), they are free to do so. If they decide they need help, they can ask. There would be a clear mission with a clear plan and a clear objective and a clear measure of success and a clear time-line.

3) Blaming America: Ron Paul has never blamed America for 9-11. Ever. In fact, he has explicitly stated that flying planes into buildings was not an appropriate response no matter what they thought the US government was guilty of (even if they were found to be completely accurate).

What Paul did was acknowledge that there are actions and reactions, and that there are all too often unintended consequences when the US (or anyone) meddles into the affairs of others. He was discussing "blowback" (the term the CIA uses for "unintended consequences of our actions") and he simply acknowledges (as does the CIA and other experts on US activities abroad) that we have - regardless of our good intentions - been meddling.

This is not opinion, but fact....and a matter of public record. From the 1953 Iranian Coup D'etat to the Nicarague/Contra scandal of the mid-1980s to the arming & training of volunteers from the region to go into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets (these fighters became al-Qaeda), the US has been extremely active outside our own borders and into the affairs of others. Sometimes that activity has produced good results, but more often than not, our covert activities (the original usage of "blowback" stems from this) have unintended consequences that outweigh whatever good was done.


So consider these points before you swallow the sound bite that Ron Paul is weak on defense or blames America or whatever other blurb you've heard from his detractors.

As an aside, I'm happy to provide links for all data contained herein if anyone reading isn't already aware of these facts.

If you have any other specific questions (specifics like Iran or more general philosophical queries), I'd be happy top do my best to respond to those, though again, I in no way speak for Paul's official campaign.

1 comment:

  1. Excellent break-down and response to the common claims. More damaging to Ron Paul's campaign, in my opinion, is the spreading notion that he is somehow "unelectable" and can never take on Obama in an election campaign. This dirty little piece of propaganda is what steers away would-be supporters of Ron Paul, and ironically becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I'd like to hear your thoughts on the anti-Ron Paul campaign, if you believe it exists.

    Below is a link to my entry on this subject today: